I am aspiring filmmaker and I am at the point where I want to write a feature length script and make the movie, and want to get distribution. It's really make or break in this business, and I have helped make several short films over the years, and feel that it's time to do something big. However, I am not sure if the screenplay I wrote, is good enough to make into a movie. I don't want to be a waste of time, and people think that the writing sucks. I showed the script to some people I know and asked from brutally honest opinions, since honesty is what helps. I got various different opinions. Some said they really liked it and were impressed. The other's said it was too far fetched, with some holes in it, and it doesn't gel. The others said that it is decently written for a script that is written for low budget, within limited resources, as oppose to being able to develop the premise, with unlimited budget, and therefore much more options of where to go with the story. The others said that they were not sure what to think of it, and would have to see the movie first, to get a full grasp of the whole thing. So what do you think? Out of every say 5 people I show it to, how many have to like it, before you know it's good? Or is that not the way to know at all?
1/ How does an unlimited budget mean that you can "develop the premise" more than you can with a limited budget? I appreciate that a low budget may mean that you'd have to settle for obvious studio shots where a bigger budget could mean you could actually use a location in Rio (and do you remember those polystyrene rocks in early Star Trek?), but that shouldn't impact upon the quality of screenwriting, or your ability to develop a dramatic idea. Remember, Shakespeare was writing for a VERY limited budget! I've seen a play which made the point that Shakespeare actually used dialogue to put across his ideas at a time when Marlowe was using all the special effects available. 2/ Somebody who needs to see the movie before being able to judge the screenwriting doesn't know enough about screenwriting to give a valid opinion on it. Take the criticisms, look at the plot holes and see if you agree with them. If you agree, fix them. If you don't, ignore them. As far as plot holes, my daughter used to enjoy House. Then she became a nurse. Now, she cannot watch it without going into a rant about how much they've got wrong!
Who are the people who are reading your script? If they're not in the industry, they probably aren't used to reading scripts, and I'd say it'd be really hard to get a good opinion out of them. We have enough trouble getting clear feedback from beta readers about novels, something they're used to reading. If the people you've asked work in the industry, what are their different roles? I'd take the opinion of a director/producer/script doctor over the opinion of a makeup artist. (Obviously if I were designing makeup features, I'd take the makeup artist's opinion!) I just don't think this can be a numbers game. You need to look at the quality of the opinion-givers, not just the quantities.
No I haven't gotten anyone in the industry to read it yet. But I should, you're right. When they say that it's good for a script with a limited budget, what they mean is that certain side characters and subplots could be developed more, and things like that, but because of budget, I wanted to keep it at a 90 minute script around, with limited locations as oppose to a script that is 120-150 minutes, with any location I want to help the story. Things like that. Some parts of the plot are explained through dialogue rather than shown, and audiences, may be thinking when did this happen, when I skipped ahead in time and it's being explained later. Such as someone explaining their sinister plan after it's already been executed into place, rather than showing the execution of it. I am doing rewrites, trying to fix the plot holes now. I figured out a way to fix the big one, everyone has mentioned, but in order to fix it, I have to rely on a cliche that been done so many times, where as I felt the original idea was more original, but it leads to a hole, so perhaps a cliche to fill it, is not so bad. But like you said, House has a lot of holes, but it's still a hit. Is it because the holes are not obvious to most people? Basically the biggest plot hole is, is that a cop blackmails a district attorney to into trying a case. The DA did not want to take the case to trial originally, because he thought it was unwinable, but the cop blackmails him into doing it by threatening not to testify in future cases, he would be required to for. But people said this was a plot hole, and no DA, would give in to such blackmail, and therefore, have to rewrite it into something else. Basically I wanted the cop to get into trouble and be charged with a felony. But since that felony charge is has holes in it, I found a way to fill the hole, but it involves the cop being framed for murder. But the whole framed for murder thing is such a cliche. But I need the cop to become a fugitive for my story to go a certain a way, so I guess that's how it has to happen to avoid holes, as far as I can think of so far. I posted my first five pages in the workshop forum, if anyone cares to take a look. It would mean a lot to me . Thanks for any input!
1/The plot holes in House are, like many medical dramas, only really apparent to somebody who works/has worked in the industry...although, when it's pointed out it's obvious enough. 2/ A cop refusing to testify? Wouldn't that be a dismissal offence? Besides which, what about using a sub-poena to force him to testify? That IS a plot hole! Why do you want the cop charged with a felony? i.e., does it have to be a felony? Would a police disciplinary hearing suffice? How about using a racist term (or it could be any form of abuse that would lead to a disciplinary hearing in any office) to a fellow officer? - An episode of Silk had a woman of Asian origin using the n-word against a black man (we don't call them African-Americans on this side of the pond!) and she was ultimately exonerated because it was an in-joke between the two of them (he used a similarly "offensive" term to her). But you could play that either way.
Well the thing is, is that even though you could use a subpeona, if he doesn't testify and is willing to go to jail, the subpeona is no good. That's how I intended to write it, but I was still told it was a plot hole, cause the cops plan is illogical. I need the cop to be charged with something cause I need him to be a fugitive hiding from the police. Basically I need him to solve a case and find out where the crooks are and what they are up to, on his own, without relying on the police, cause I want the cops to be after him as well, to build towards the ending I want.
